Fiscal benefit cannot be denied on suspicion alone when invoices show no duty element and no contrary evidence exists.

Fiscal benefit could not be denied merely because the imported goods were sold after the dates of the sales invoices, where the authorities had made no enquiry and produced no contrary evidence. The inference that the invoices predated clearance was based only on suspicion, and mere suspicion could not displace the claimed linkage between the invoices and the imported consignments. The notification benefit also could not be refused for lack of an endorsement that Cenvat credit was inadmissible when the invoices showed no duty element, since the invoice itself satisfied the condition. The benefit was accordingly upheld on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of benefit on the ground that the imported goods were sold after the dates of the sales invoices could be sustained in the absence of enquiry or contrary evidence; (ii) whether the benefit under the notification could be denied for want of an endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible where the invoices did not show any duty element.

Issue (i): Whether denial of benefit on the ground that the imported goods were sold after the dates of the sales invoices could be sustained in the absence of enquiry or contrary evidence.

Analysis: Future sale of existing goods was not prohibited. The authorities proceeded only on an apprehension that the invoices were issued earlier than clearance of the goods, but that inference was not supported by any enquiry or investigation. In the absence of evidence showing that the appellant dealt in similar non-imported goods or had any oblique motive, mere suspicion could not displace the claimed linkage between the invoices and the imported consignments.

Conclusion: The denial of benefit on this ground was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit under the notification could be denied for want of an endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible where the invoices did not show any duty element.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that such an endorsement was not necessary when the invoice itself did not indicate any duty element. Non-declaration of duty in the invoice was treated as sufficient compliance with the relevant condition of the notification.

Conclusion: Denial of the notification benefit on this ground was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals were allowed on merits, and the connected requests for early hearing were rendered infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere suspicion where no contrary evidence is adduced, and a notification condition may stand satisfied by the invoice itself when no duty element is shown therein.

---